INA History Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
negi
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 12913
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Trying to mellow down :)

Re: INA History Thread

Postby negi » 28 Dec 2009 08:47

The English had closed the loop holes that existed in their power structure after the Sepoy mutiny , and since then the loyalty and selflessness with which Indians have served the BA is definitely a subject worth discussing. I think one reason might be that English were sensible enough to never employ the BA against the local population in India, in fact I would say they were never compelled to use force thanks to alternative, peaceful and revolutionary non violent methods employed by the usual suspects.My grand father served both BA and the IA and he always maintained that a soldier has no religion or any attachment to a political cause his aim is to follow orders and bring glory to the 'paltan'. :-? (perhaps something to do with the way soldiers are groomed in the Army)

Avinash R
BRFite
Posts: 1973
Joined: 24 Apr 2008 19:59

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Avinash R » 02 Feb 2010 20:45

Inquire about 'Gumnami Baba': RTI activists to UP CM
New Delhi, Feb 2 (PTI) A group of RTI activists today wrote to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati for setting-up an expert committee to investigate about 'Gumnami Baba', whom a retired Supreme Court judge has purportedly identified as Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in a documentary.

"In an upcoming documentary, Justice M K Mukherjee has been shown to make 'strictly off the record' assertion that he is "100 per cent" sure that Bhagwanji of Faizabad was Subhas Chandra Bose in disguise.

"In saying so, Justice Mukherjee -- who did not know that his statements were being recorded -- has unwillingly made public what has the potential to change the history of modern India," the RTI Activists Anuj Dhar, Chandrachur Ghose and Sayantan Dasgupta, said in their letter.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 03 Oct 2010 00:09

Please try to get hold of this book:

Maj. Gen. Shahnawaz, Col. Prem K. Sahgal, Col. Gurbax Singh Dhillon, "The I.N.A. Heroes - Autobiographies"
Hero Publications, Lahore | 1946 | ISBN: none | 266 pgs. |

Rapidshare deleted it!

shyamm
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 21:06
Location: bangalore

Re: INA History Thread

Postby shyamm » 08 Nov 2010 20:51


MJB
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 01:28

Re: INA History Thread

Postby MJB » 25 Nov 2010 01:46

Hello everyone,

I am the author of "For Free India: Indian Soldiers in Germany and Italy during the Second World War.

Please check out the book's website: http://www.freeindianlegion.info and note the quotes from Netaji's daughter - Prof Dr Anita Pfaff - she has very kindly written an afterword for the book.

If anyone would like to purchase a copy, please e-mail the publisher (in the Netherlands) at:

info@oskam-neeven.nl

Many thanks and best wishes to all the members of this forum.

MJB

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby svinayak » 27 Nov 2010 11:36

During World War II, the island served as an important Allied military base. A large segment of the British and American fleet were deployed on the island, as were tens of thousands of soldiers committed to the war against Japan in Southeast Asia. Majority of Ceylonese forget the war as part of British Commonwealth Forces, and some Ceylonese expatriates in the Far east joined to form a Lanka Regiment in the Indian National Army. There was a plan to transport them to Ceylon by submarine, to lead a liberation struggle there[citation needed], but this was aborted.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby RajeshA » 17 Dec 2010 21:44

From Wikipedia: Christmas Island Mutiny
During the night of 10–11 March {1943} a mutiny of the Indian troops, abetted by the Sikh policemen, led to the murder of the five British soldiers and the imprisonment of the remaining 21 Europeans.

FroguetteMiNote
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 05 Jan 2011 19:14

Looking for info on Freies Indien defectors in France

Postby FroguetteMiNote » 06 Jan 2011 13:25

Hello all.

For a fiction book research, i am looking for info about the Freies Indien based in France that chose not to go back to Germany in the summer of 1944.

Some sources (memoirs of French Résistants of the Brigade Carnot, some historians' books) say hundreds of them defected and joined the French troops for the Front du Médoc battle (which lasted until mid-45 and involved soldiers from continental and colonial France -- but, in theory, no British or American footsoldiers).

Major Roger Landes (SOE officer in charge with the Aquitaine region) counts 100 of them in an August report and says he considers them to be British soldiers and they should be taken care of and brought to England…

Others (Rudolf Hartog -- i have yet to read his book) apparently mention they were 29 and were executed by the French and the British launched an enquiry about this.

I also found various mentions of mutinies in Médoc and Lacanau.

I am trying to make sense of all this, which seems a bit contradictory. So any hint as to first hand sources, like personal memoirs or location of public or private archives, wherever they are, would be very appreciated, as well as contact info…

Thanks in advance for your help.

FMN

FroguetteMiNote
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 05 Jan 2011 19:14

Re:

Postby FroguetteMiNote » 06 Jan 2011 14:25

shyamm wrote:A Ceylonese volunteer's experiences in the INA

[url=http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7752_1676979,004100180006.htm]Netaji's army as seen by a Ceylonese recruit
[/url]


Article was moved to:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/INA-as-seen-by-a-Ceylonese-recruit/Article1-41633.aspx

Cheers,

FMN

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 21 Jan 2011 10:22

From British Library

Image


SC Bose Addressing a rally in Tokyo 1945.
and

Recent activities of Subash Chandra Bose

Most Secret

1. Subhas Chandra Bose, who arrived in East Asia from Germany in May, appears to have gone to Tokio in mid-June. His arrival in Asia, at first kept secret, is now being widely publicised.

2. On his arrival in Tokio, Bose granted a number of interviews to Axis journalists at his headquarters at the Imperial Hotel. The gist of these interviews was reiteration of his belief in an Axis victory, in the imminent liberation of India with Axis help, and in the need for an armed revolt in India to coincide with invasion from the East. He also answered questions on such subjects as the character of Chiang Kai-shek and the appointment of the new Viceroy.

3. Bose has also spoken on the wireless - to India in English, Hindi and Bengali, and to Germany and Indians in Germany in German. In these broadcasts he again paid tribute to Axis benevolence, and urged all Indians outside India to get into touch with him and help him to organise a "gigantic force to sweep the British from India". This first veiled reference to the "Indian National Army" was later amplified by an official announcement from I.I.L. Headquarters in Singapore declaring that this "new Indian Army" is now under training. On July 8 a formation of the I.N.A. paraded before Bose and the Japanese Prime Minister, Tojo, during the latter's visit to Singapore.

4. On July 4, at a meeting of the Indian Independence League at Singapore ("Shonan") the interim President of the League, Rash Behari Bose, presented Subhas Bose to the League as its new President. S C Bose, who has adopted the title of "Mehtarji" ["Netaji"] or Leader, made a lengthy presidential address, chief points of which were:-

(a) Immediate formation under his aegis of a Provisional Government for India. When the revolution has succeeded this will be replaced by a permanent, popularly elected government.
(b) The hour of India's fight for Freedom has not struck.
(c) His sincere belief in Japan's good intentions.
(d) India's hope of freedom lies only in an Axis victory.
(e) Wavell's appointment means increased ruthlessness.
(f) Existence of many agents inside India with whom, in spite of the British Secret Service, he has kept in close touch.
(g) Great difficulties ahead.

5. In general, Bose's arrival in Asia may be said to have greatly increased the tempo of subversive propaganda, and appears to have galvanised the I.I.L. into greater political activity. It is also noticeable (and to be expected) that while praising and thanking Japan, Bose never forgets to refer to Germany and to Axis sympathy for India. Before his coming the I.I.L. was only publicised in connection with Japan: S C Bose clearly intends to raise the movement into a national campaign for freedom supported by all three Axis powers.

6. Bose's great drive and political acumen, his prestige in Indian revolutionary circles, his understanding of both Indian and English character, will be of real value to the Japanese whose propaganda against India has hitherto lacked imagination. Although we have good reason to believe that his statement at 4(f) is exaggerated there is no doubt that under Bose's direction subversive activities and espionage in India will be greatly intensified.

7. Bose has now finally burned his boats with us by virtue of his association with Germany and Japan, his political future being entirely dependent upon the continued military success of the Japanese and the paralysis of British rule in India by internal revolt. Fortunately public morale and internal security in India are now fairly steady and the Japanese widely feared. Bose will undoubtedly be able to make some capital our of the economic distress and the political deadlock but unless he can win over Congress en bloc his chances of stirring up a major revolt would appear to be small. Had he arrived in East Asia last August or even during Gandhi's fast his prospects would have been much better.


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 07 Jan 2012 02:55

Glad to keep the thread alive....

X-posting...

brihaspati wrote:Whatever be the reality, before we claim that the Brits would have jumped into India with military intervention to crush any "revolution" - we need to look at several viewpoints coming from those times. We need to think - whatever be the reality - whether the Brits themselves really thought themselves as capable of doing so: first here from a distinguished Indian commander,

Military and the partition

The paper written by the Director Military Intelligence had a novel security classification – Top Secret, Not For Indian Eyes. My predecessor a British officer in a hurry to go back home to the UK on demobilization, had handed over the key of the almirah containing classified documents to me without checking the documents. This paper was written in the wake of the INA trials.

It stated that the Indian officers of the Army could be divided into three categories – those commissioned before 1933 from Sandhurst, the pre-war officers commissioned between 1933 and 1939, and the wartime emergency commissioned officers. The Sandhurst officers were considered more reliable. They were now middle aged with family commitments and did not nurture much grievance as they had been treated well. They were very few, their total number being about thirty. The pre-war, 1933 to 1939 officers had a grievance because their emoluments were not at par with their British counterparts. This disparity was removed during the war but its memory and of some other discriminations still rankled with them. The wartime officers numbering about 12,000 against a total of 500 of the two previous categories, were considered most unreliable. While in their schools and colleges, they had been exposed to subversive political influence culminating in the Quit India movement.

They faced an uncertain future because they were all emergency commissioned officers and only very few were likely to be accommodated in the permanent post-war cadre of the Army. They were working at the company and platoon level interacting directly with the soldiers.

As for the soldiers, the position regarding them had also changed radically. Prior to the war, the strength of the Army was 1.37 lakhs and recruitment was confined to the martial classes. A large number of soldiers came from traditional military families. During the war, floodgates had been opened for recruitment. The Army had been expanded from 1.37 lakhs to 2.2 millions. The INA had had a psychological impact on the officers and men of the Army.

Further, the bulk of the Army overseas had served in South East Asia, where they had seen how the prestige of the colonial powers had suffered at the hands of the Japanese in the early years of the war. Towards the end of the war, national movements for freedom had erupted in Asian countries ruled by colonial powers like the British, the French, the Dutch and the Portugese. The paper also took into account that an economically exhausted Britain after a long drawn out war, was not in a position to maintain a strong British military presence in India. In the circumstance, the paper recommended early British withdrawal from India. I was much impressed by this very analytical study.

The fact that the Indian Army had an impact on our movement for Independence and hastened the dawn of freedom is indisputable. Earl Atlee the British Prime Minister, who had presided over the liquidation of the British Empire in 1947, confirmed this during his visit to India in 1956. He told Mr Chakravarty, the then Governor of Bengal, that the decision to quit quickly in 1947 had been taken because the British could no longer rely on the loyalty of the Indian Army.

Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 685
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Abhi_G » 23 Jan 2012 10:50

Today is Netaji's Birthday, January 23rd.

Image

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12886
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 24 Jan 2012 02:12

Jai Netaji Subhash Bose, Jai Hind

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4884
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: INA History Thread

Postby SBajwa » 24 Jan 2012 02:28

Jai Hind!!! -- Netaji


Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1091
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Hiten » 24 Jan 2012 10:08

wasn't aware of an INA-specific thread

x-posting from the parition thread

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose - The Flame Burns Bright

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4l9UVfjO4

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 01 Jul 2012 11:39

USI Journal Paper:
impact of INA on Independence

Concluding Remarks

There are two misconceptions still prevalent: one that Gandhiji was solely responsible for India achieving Independence and the other that it was achieved by peaceful means. Gandjhiji’s peaceful means in its effective form, lasted barely two months and we had to wait for another five years to attain freedom.17 The stirring deeds of the INA caught the imagination of all Indians and the fire of patriotism burned brighter than ever before and found expression in the mutiny in the Indian Navy in Bombay in 1946. Professor Hazara Singh has stated, “Even in its defeat, the INA had been successful in ringing the death knell of Colonialism”.18

The Naval mutiny in Bombay in 1946 was followed by another among the ground crew in the Royal Indian Air Force. An Army mutiny broke out at Jabalpur during the last week of February 1946, which had to be put down with difficulty. The weekly intelligence summary of 25 March 1946 admitted that the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force units could not be relied upon to put down mass revolt. Thus, what Netaji and the INA failed to achieve directly, they succeeded in achieving posthumously. The trials were carried out in the Red Fort, New Delhi, thus ironically enabling the INA remnants to achieve Netaji’s War Cry, “Chalo Delhi.” The British saw the writing on the wall. When historian Dr Mazumdar spoke to the prime minister of Britain, Lord Clement Attlee on his decision to grant Independence to India; the latter cited among several reasons, the principle reason was erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian Army as a result of the military activities of Netaji.19 Make no mistake, India’s achieving Independence was no benign ‘transfer of power’. Power was wrested from the British, as is clear from Clement Attlee’s statement. And it was the Indian National Army that forced Britain’s hand.

Congress leaders, particularly Nehru, soon changed their stance in relation to the INA. Their purpose of squeezing the maximum political advantage from championing the INA had been achieved. Congress leaders were now kind but patronising. Soon they would be indifferent. The INA officers would not be asked to re-enter the Indian Army. It was no longer necessary to hail the defendants of the Red Fort trials and make much of the INA. They had served their purpose.

On 22 May 1946, Gandhiji addressed the INA officers.20 He said, “Your object, as I have been told, was only to free India, never to help the Japanese. You failed in your direct objective, i.e. to defeat the British. But you have the satisfaction that the whole Country has been roused and even regular forces have been stirred into a new political consciousness and have begun to think in terms of Independence. You have achieved a complete unity among the Hindus, Muslims, Parsis, Christians, Anglo-Indians and Sikhs in your ranks. That is no mean achievement.” So far so good. He then went on to say, “Above all, you must never beg or throw yourselves on anybody’s charity. Because you have risked your lives for India’s sake and fought for her on the Imphal plains, you must not expect to be pampered in return.”

And why not, one may be tempted to ask. Any other country would have “pampered” them. In any case, the INA never wanted anything in return except recognition. Even that was not forthcoming. Nehru, the first Prime Minister of Independent India firmly believed that the INA had laboured, mistakenly, for India’s freedom. Their purpose having been served, Nehru simply archived them and there they remain, like faded photographs in an old family album.



RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15996
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby RajeshA » 20 Jul 2012 19:07


Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Johann » 21 Jul 2012 03:29

brihaspati wrote:
RahulM wrote
secondly, during the two world wars members of the Indian armed forces genuinely believed that they were fighting to save India from an attack by foreign powers (russia and germany/japan respectively).


RahulM, can you give some pointers to personal narratives of Indian army personnel from this period that shows this feeling you refer to? I am aware of some from the "Naval mutiny" (but these are not from "higher" echelons), but would like to gain references for the two other wings. What was the "India" they described, directly or indirectly, that they thought they were defending? Had they no feeling that they were committed to defending the British Empire in India rather than "India"?

The higher ranks are supposed to have come more from so-called martial races or supposed "aristocrats" - both based practically on criteria of personal loyalty to the British, not "India". It would be really interesting to find evidence of sentiments you mention in the officer cadre (up to the level they were allowed to rise). By training, early education, they are likely to be affiliated more to "loyalty to the British" rather than any "concept" of India. Still it would be enlightening to have counter-views from those directly involved.

In the whole attitude to the INA soldiers, after their final surrender, by the victorious BIA - do we see any real proof of identification with the aims (apart from the propaganda of INA being a cover for Japanese occupation) of the INA if not agreement with the methods? After all, the Japanese would have replaced one occupier by another - so question of loyalty to the "nation" does not arise. It was fighting on behalf of one occupier against another - unless the preexisting occupier was being accepted as the "nation".


B,

The British Indian Army during WWII was the largest volunteer force in history. Many joined specifically during the war. However, it certainly was not for the sake of Britain in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Many of those I've spoken to said that after the 1935 Govt. of India Act and the elections of 1937 there was a strong feeling that Indian self-rule was around the corner.

There were more and more Indians in administration, more Indians in manufacturing, etc increased people's sense of stake in the system. The opportunity to serve as an officer in particular was another chance to both personally advance as well as reverse-colonise the system.

With the Japanese among many who served there was no desire to swap one weakening colonial power for a strong new one. Many of the more educated who had been following the news the Japanese treatment of China gave little reason to believe that the Japanese would help India. By the end of 1942 even the nationalists in Indonesia and Burma who initially supported the Japanese were fighting them. At a more popular level stories of Japanese ill-treatment of Indians in Burma and Singapore, and the Japanese bombing of Madras and Vizag frightened a lot of people.

For those on the left or with leftist sympathies, the Soviet Union's entry in to the war also changed the idea that this was just a war between imperialists. Even the Communist Party of India was un-banned. They did quite a lot of agit-prop work in favour of the war effort from 1941 onwards legitimating the war effort. Back then many nationalists worked closely with the left so I'm sure it had an effect.

Hitesh
BRFite
Posts: 793
Joined: 04 Jul 1999 11:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Hitesh » 21 Jul 2012 04:37

Johann,

It was a case of picking the lesser evil. Japan was seen as this wanna be colonial power and British was seen as "already been there and we know how it works after paying for painful lessons of how to learn to manipulate the British" We had no desire of repeating the process.

You should know that the major reason why British government caved so easily after 1945 to Indian independence whereas before 1939 Britain was so resistant to self rule or the notion of independence was that they realized after the Indian Naval Mutiny and the near success of INA, that they could no longer count on the loyalty of the Indian soldiers. After all, they were now facing a battle hardened 2 million man army willing to fight for Indian independence if Britain didn't give them what they wanted and nearly exhausted from WWII and facing huge debts, they were not willing to take the pain. In that context, it wasn't Gandhi who paved the way for independence. What he did was give Britain an honorable out of India, leaving with its dignity and honor intact. The real credit for convincing the Britain to leave lies in the actions and sacrifices of the Indian soldiers of the British Indian Army as well as INA and the sailors of the Indian Naval Mutiny and to some extent, Germany and Adolf hitler despite his murderous genocidal actions.

If it wasn't for WWII, Germany, and BIA and yes the INA, It would have been another 50 years before we could finally see independence. See how long it took some countries of Africa to declare independence. IIRC, the last country to declare independence was Rhodesia or Mozambique. That showed how ingrained the mentality of the Brits regarding overseas territory. When they lost India, it set off a chain reaction in which Britain could only retain small islands with control or have its queen as a figurehead.

I strongly think that INA deserves a place in India's history and its soldiers be honored and remembered because they were true patriots of India. They honestly thought that alliance with Japan would lead to independence. That itself showed the hollowness of Johann's argument that Brits were on the way out. If the Brits were truly on their way out, not many indian soldiers would defect to the INA. It only took the the combined actions of INA, Indian Naval Mutiny, and the apparent unwillingness of the rank and file of BIA to tolerate another year of British rule. Clement Atkins saw that. Churchill was too blind by his hatred and contempt for the Indians to see that and by a stroke of luck or due to Gandhi's persuasions, the populace of Britain saw the British rule as a losing proposition and kicked out Churchill even though he led them through WWII and elected Clement Atkins to prepare a speedy exit out of India.

ManuT
BRFite
Posts: 597
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 23:50

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ManuT » 24 Jul 2012 06:04

Freedom fighter Captain Lakshmi Sahgal dies

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/freed ... herstories
Kanpur: Freedom fighter Captain Lakshmi Sahgal has died in a Kanpur hospital; she was 97. She was in a coma since Wednesday when she had a heart stroke. She was a close aide of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose.

There will be no cremation ceremony held as her body has been donated to the Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi Medical College in Kanpur.

Captain Lakshmi Sahgal was born in Madras and qualified as a doctor from the Madras Medical College in 1938. Two years later, she moved to Singapore and set up a free clinic to help migrant Indian workers. She met Subhash Chandra Bose in Singapore in 1943. He spoke of the need to create an all- women's regiment in the Indian National Army in the fight for India's independence, and made her its commander.


Freedom fighter Captain Lakshmi Sahgal dies
In 1947, she married Colonel Prem Kumar Sahgal. Their oldest child, Subhasini, is a prominent social activist and CPM leader. The Sahgals were settled in Kanpur where she continued her work as a doctor.

In 1971, Sahgal joined the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and represented the party in the Rajya Sabha.

In 2002, four leftist parties - the Communist Party of India, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), the Revolutionary Socialist Party, and the All India Forward Bloc - made her their candidate for President of India. She was defeated by APJ Abdul Kalam.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Vice President Hamid Ansari today condoled the death of freedom fighter Captain Lakshmi Sehgal, saying that the nation has lost an icon of selfless service.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3464
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Paul » 24 Jul 2012 06:52

http://frontlineonnet.com/fl2912/storie ... 208100.htm

As early as in 1941, “Sardar Patel felt convinced that the Allies were going to lose the war” (K.M. Munshi; Pilgrimage to Freedom, 1967; page 75).


To his lasting credit, not once did Nehru compromise with the fascists.


If true, this may have clinched the arguement handing over the reins of India to Nehru rather than any other competitor like CR, Patel, or Bose.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Jagan » 24 Jul 2012 17:27

“If we said to Japan that her fight was with British imperialism and not us she would say, ‘We are glad the British army is withdrawn; we recognise your independence. But we want certain facilities now. We shall defend you against aggression. We want aerodromes, freedom to pass our troops through your country. This is necessary in self-defence.' They might seize strategic points and proceed to Iraq, etc. The masses won't be touched if only the strategic points are captured. Japan is an imperialist country. Conquest of India is in their plan. If Bapu's approach is accepted we become passive partners of the Axis powers. This approach is contrary to the Congress policy for the last two years and a half. The Allied countries will have a feeling that we are their enemies…. “The whole background of the draft is one which will inevitably make the world think that we are passively lining up with the Axis powers. The British are asked to withdraw. After the withdrawal we are to negotiate with Japan and possibly come to some terms with her. These terms may include a large measure of civil control by us, a certain measure of military control by them, passage of armies through India, etc…. Whether you will like it or not, the exigencies of the war situation will compel them to make India a battleground. In sheer self-defence they cannot afford to keep out. They will walk through the country. You can't stop it by non-violent non-cooperation. Most of the population will not be affected by the march. Individuals may resist in a symbolic way. The Japanese armies will go to Iraq, Persia, etc., throttle China and make the Russian situation more difficult…. But the whole thought and background of the draft is one of favouring Japan. It may not be conscious. Three factors influence our decisions in the present emergency: (i) Indian freedom, (ii) sympathy for certain larger causes, (iii) probable outcome of the war; who is going to win? It is Gandhiji's feeling that Japan and Germany will win. This feeling unconsciously governs his decision. The approach in the draft is different from mine” (emphasis added throughout). (Congress Responsibility for the Disturbances 1942-43, Government of India, 1943, page 43.)


If Nehru really said that, going against Gandhi's opinion - I am impressed. He had more foresight than the others at that point.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4761
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Yayavar » 24 Jul 2012 20:42

^^Is this in relation to and at time of Quit-India movement or after it all?

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12886
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 24 Jul 2012 21:05

must be before or during, in 1942 during QI, both japanese and german forces were making rapid progress, british were reeling and US was only mobilising

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 24 Jul 2012 21:54

AG Noorani and his constant psy-ops to prop up JLN and his coterie.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4761
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Yayavar » 24 Jul 2012 22:15

^^the question was because the quote is in a 1943 publication. So, is this a post-event restatement of stands taken or is it a 'real-time' capture of the statements? Until winter 1942 there was hardly any indication that Allies would win.

tushar_m
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 21:07

Indian National Army and fight for freedom

Postby tushar_m » 03 Feb 2013 09:23

The Indian National Army (INA; Azad Hind Fauj; Hindi: आज़ाद हिन्द फ़ौज; Urdu: آزاد ہند فوج‎) was an armed force formed by Indian nationalists in 1942 in Southeast Asia during World War II. The aim of the army was to secure Indian independence with Japanese assistance. Initially composed of Indian prisoners of war captured by Japan in the Malayan campaign and at Singapore, it later drew volunteers from Indian expatriate population in Malaya and Burma. The INA also was at the forefront of women's equality and the formation of a women's regiment, the Rani of Jhansi regiment was formed as an all volunteer women's unit to fight the British occupiers as well as provide medical services to the INA.

Initially formed in 1942 immediately after the fall of Singapore under Mohan Singh, the first INA collapsed in December that year before it was revived under the leadership of Subhas Chandra Bose in 1943 and proclaimed the army of Bose's Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind (The Provisional Government of Free India). This second INA fought along with the Imperial Japanese Army against the British and Commonwealth forces in the campaigns in Burma, Imphal and Kohima, and later, against the successful Burma Campaign of the Allies. The end of the war saw a large number of the troops repatriated to India where some faced trial for treason and became a galvanising point of the Indian Independence movement.

After the war, the Red Fort trials of captured INA officers in India provoked massive public outcries in support of their efforts to fight for Indian independence against the Raj, eventually triggering the Bombay mutiny in the British Indian forces.These events in the twilight of the Raj are accepted by historians to have played a crucial role in its relatively rapid end.


while lot of people were fighting for freedom with in India these were the people which were outside the homeland & making comrades for complete freedom of India.

we salute these forgotten hero's many of which are still alive to tell the war stories of how they fought under extreme environment & continue our fight for freedom.

the INA was the first force in the world to acknowledge women in combat & we would love to hear the stories of these people & we expect people from the BRforum to share their stories & views on the INA

tushar_m
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 21:07

Re: Indian National Army and fight for freedom

Postby tushar_m » 12 Feb 2013 22:24

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Boys

Image

The Tokyo Cadets or the Tokyo Boys, was the name given to the group of forty five youth recruits of the Indian National Army who were sent to the Imperial Japanese Army Academy or Imperial Japanese Army Air Force Academy to train as fighter pilots in 1944 by Subhas Chandra Bose. The cadets were captured as Prisoners of War after Japan surrendered, but were released in 1946 after the end of the INA trials. The cadets became Indian forces officers, Burma Navy officer, Pakistan force officer, private pilots and others. Some of them became general officers.

tushar_m
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 21:07

Re: Indian National Army and fight for freedom

Postby tushar_m » 12 Feb 2013 22:31

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-180


Image
The crew of the Japanese submarine I-29 after the rendezvous with the German submarine U-180 300 sm southeast from Madagascar. At bottom left is the Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose. Date : 28 April 1943


German submarine U-180 was a Type IXD1 transport U-boat of the Nazi German Kriegsmarine which served in World War II. Her keel was laid down on 25 February 1941 at the AG Weser yard in Bremen as 'werk' 1020. She was was launched on 10 December 1941 and commissioned on 16 May 1942 under Fregattenkapitän Werner Musenberg. Stripped of torpedo armament, the Type IXD1s were designated as transport submarines, and could carry up to 252 tonnes of freight.[2] U-180 was used primarily in clandestine operations.

U-180 sailed from Kiel on 9 February 1943, with the leader of the Indian National Army Subhas Chandra Bose and his aide Abid Hasan aboard.

On 18 April U-180 sank the British 8,132 ton tanker Corbis about 500 miles east southeast of Port Elizabeth, South Africa.[3] Three days later, on 21 April, the boat made her rendezvous with the Japanese submarine I-29, just east of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean, and exchanged the two Indians for two Japanese Navy officers, both shipbuilding officers, Captains Emi and Tomonaga, who were to study U-boat building techniques upon their arrival in Germany. Also received were two tonnes of gold ingots as payment from Japan for weapons technology.

On the return voyage, U-180 sank the Greek freighter Boris west of Ascension Island on 3 June 1943.[4]

During this voyage, U-180 was supplied by U-462 on the way to the exchange. She was supposed to be refueled by U-463 on the way back, but that boat was sunk by the British on 16 May 1943. On 19 June, U-180 was refueled by U-530.

tushar_m
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 21:07

Re: Indian National Army and fight for freedom

Postby tushar_m » 12 Feb 2013 22:41

Image

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 12 Feb 2013 23:25

Up

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9860
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Vayutuvan » 10 Apr 2013 02:22

May be Acharya was referring to the following gent. (in a very old post - I missed the date of that original post where he referred to Akbar Khan)

Raja Habib ur Rahman Khan

Raja Habib ur Rahman Khan (1913–1978) was an Indian freedom fighter during British colonial rule of India, Rahman was an officer in the Indian National Army (INA) who was charged with "waging war against His Majesty the King Emperor". Along with Gen. Shah Nawaz Khan, Col. Prem Kumar Sahgal & Col. Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon, he was tried by the British at the end of World War II in the famous INA trials that began on November 5, 1945 at Red Fort. Rahman also played an important role in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. Khan was one of greatest and most celebrated heroes of the war to liberate Kashmir from Dogra rule. Fought against Maharaja Hari Singh's Dogra army and conquered Bhimber in Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. During the Jammu & Kashmir agitation for freedom, he trained many people of the area as Mujahids to fight against the Dogra army for freedom.Indo-Pakistani War of 1947.


He was born in Bhimber in POK (Wiki uses the incorrect name which should be contested or at least put a small note saying that the correct nomenclature is POK) and has been projected as a hero of POK.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50641
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 11 Apr 2013 23:36

X-Post..
Samudragupta wrote:
You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write this history of Bengal and publishing it … In the preface of the book Dr. Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor’s palace at Calcutta during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct question to him was that since Gandhi’s “Quit India” movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji [Subhash Chandra Bose]. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi’s influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question, Atlee's lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, “m-i-n-i-m-a-l!”



http://factsfootprint.blogspot.in/2012/ ... t-for.html

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4761
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Yayavar » 12 Apr 2013 00:25

Certainly the 'mutinies' had a great effect but they came after the entire war was over. INA had been decimated by British India Army using Indian troops, and the INA soldiers were mostly not included in the free India's Army. But this article gives credit to Adolf Hitler for it :). The Bengal HC judge might claim Attlee said minimal wrt Gandhi, but it is in in '47. The Gandhi influence was greater in the past for sure. The article notes that Quit india movement was in the past and had tapered off - so it is not talking of the earlier times but the more recent i.e. around '47. We need to recognize where Bose, Gandhi and the Naval/Army mutinies contributed and not put down one or the other even if the later governments attributed all to Congress for their own advantage.

member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: INA History Thread

Postby member_22539 » 12 Apr 2013 07:34

^I have always felt that M. Gandhi's role in the independence struggle has been grossly exaggerated to the detriment of many more relevant and crucial determinants. Though he did give a united movement for independence that had a pan India presence and appeal, I see his influence akin to that of the modern day Anna Hazare movement, though of course at a vastly different level. It was popular and it got the people aware and in some ways organized, but it was not really gonna go anywhere without other determinants, both outside (Hitler) and inside (Netaji). To credit our independence to him and his movement is to credit eggs as the main ingredient of cake. But, of course we know why this is done. Sometimes I wish if only Mr. Ghodse had waited until the dissolved the congi party, we would have been saved a lot of trouble.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9860
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Vayutuvan » 15 Apr 2013 19:01

Arun Menon wrote:^I have always felt that M. Gandhi's role in the independence struggle has been grossly exaggerated to the detriment of many more relevant and crucial determinants. Though he did give a united movement for independence that had a pan India presence and appeal, I see his influence akin to that of the modern day Anna Hazare movement, though of course at a vastly different level.


What more can one ask for?

Baikul
BRFite
Posts: 1128
Joined: 20 Sep 2010 06:47

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Baikul » 15 Apr 2013 21:07

Arun Menon wrote:^I have always felt that M. Gandhi's role in the independence struggle has been grossly exaggerated to the detriment of many more relevant and crucial determinants. Though he did give a united movement for independence that had a pan India presence and appeal, I see his influence akin to that of the modern day Anna Hazare movement, though of course at a vastly different level. It was popular and it got the people aware and in some ways organized, but it was not really gonna go anywhere without other determinants, both outside (Hitler) and inside (Netaji). To credit our independence to him and his movement is to credit eggs as the main ingredient of cake. But, of course we know why this is done. Sometimes I wish if only Mr. Ghodse had waited until the dissolved the congi party, we would have been saved a lot of trouble.


All of this is OT, but I cannot let a post like this go unchallenged. It is a straw-man's argument that Gandhiji and his movement is given all or even the lion's share of credit for Independence. Or that there were no other factors. No single person at any point in time can be given all the credit for a historical movement of this magnitude.

But I do believe that his role, his charisma, his leadership was one of the most important causal forces. It was unique, it was unparalleled in modern political history (maybe even longer) and it was fundamental. From what I have read, and from first person accounts of those who actually saw Gandhiji in action, he literally towers above all other leaders of India's independence movement.

Baikul
BRFite
Posts: 1128
Joined: 20 Sep 2010 06:47

Re: Indian National Army and fight for freedom

Postby Baikul » 15 Apr 2013 21:36

tushar_m wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Boys
............

The Tokyo Cadets or the Tokyo Boys, was the name given to the group of forty five youth recruits of the Indian National Army who were sent to the Imperial Japanese Army Academy or Imperial Japanese Army Air Force Academy to train as fighter pilots in 1944 by Subhas Chandra Bose. The cadets were captured as Prisoners of War after Japan surrendered, but were released in 1946 after the end of the INA trials. The cadets became Indian forces officers, Burma Navy officer, Pakistan force officer, private pilots and others. Some of them became general officers.


The bolded part is news to me; I was under the impression that INA officers and soldiers alike were not taken back by the Indian Army. My reading suggests that they were released, but also discharged. Perhaps I am wrong in this instance, since these were intended to be air force cadets?

I have no information on their Burmese and Pakistani counterparts.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Jagan » 20 Apr 2013 09:51

The only INA Tokyo Cadet who became a 'general' ranking officer was Air Commodore R S Benegal of the IAF. I dont think anyone else got to serve in the armed forces


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austin, sgopal and 43 guests